ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2024
Evaluation of the safety and feasibility of outpatient colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscopic clip systems for hemostasis and defect closure in gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly used for resection of benign nonpedunculated colorectal polyps and early cancers. However, there is concern that adoption of ESD may be limited by increased resource utilization with routine postprocedure admission. As endoscopic closure of ESD wounds has improved, in 2022, we adopted an outpatient colorectal ESD protocol. Methods: This study was a retrospective evaluation of adult patients who underwent colorectal ESD from January 2022 to April 2023. When technically feasible, the wound was closed by clips or suturing. After the procedure, patients were observed for up to 2 hours and discharged if they had no abdominal pain and no intraoperative muscle injury was present. We evaluated for operative success (en-bloc, R0, and curative resection) as well as safety (postprocedure pain, perforation, delayed bleeding). Results: One hundred eleven lesions were removed by ESD in 105 consecutive patients. Nineteen lesions (17%) had prior EMR. All lesions were successfully removed: The en-bloc resection rate was 93% and the R0 and curative resection rate was 90%. Ninety-nine wounds (89%) were closed, most commonly using clips (60/111; 54%). Two small intraprocedural perforations occurred, both managed with clip closure, and the patients did not require admission. Among patients with defect closure, there were no delayed bleeds requiring hospitalization and only 1 episode of self-limited bleeding. In contrast, among 12 patients with resection sites not amenable to closure, there were 1 delayed bleed requiring hospitalization, 2 minor bleeds assessed at the emergency department, and 2 self-limited bleeds. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, we demonstrated the feasibility of outpatient colorectal ESD. Among 105 patients, only 2 required hospital admission: 1 for postprocedure pain and 1 for delayed bleeding. We found that after endoscopic closure of ESD wounds, hospital admission was generally unnecessary and significant postprocedure bleeding was rare.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.